Georgette Heyer Fans discussion
Group Reads
>
Georgette Heyer's Regency World Part 1. Introduction to Chapter 7
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Critterbee❇
(last edited Jun 23, 2020 05:28AM)
(new)
Jun 23, 2020 05:27AM
Half-way through the chapter on men, and I have not yet seen the phrase 'in my salad days' which, from context, is easy to understand the meaning of, but what is the origination of that phrase?
reply
|
flag
Jackie wrote: "let's see if I can copy/paste this definition of levee (the last one is kind of funny) : noun
noun: levee; plural noun: levees
ARCHAIC•NORTH AMERICAN
a formal reception of visitors or guests.
"th..."
just rising from the bed!
I read that having just arisen! I though: guests BEFORE coffee???
Midwives were MALE not female. The days of village women delivering babies were mostly over. Accoucheur was the fancy French word for male midwife. Village women were seen s dirty, slovenly, perhaps drunken and contributing to disease. Of course it was a male midwife that killed Princess Charlotte with his non-intervention methods. This book is specifically about the Regency world GH created. I don't think all the topics covered are specifically universally true in real life.
Good point, QNPoohBear, that it's a book about a simulacrum. Though it would be helpful if the author distinguished between Heyer's world and the historical world from time to time!
Abigail wrote: "Good point, QNPoohBear, that it's a book about a simulacrum. Though it would be helpful if the author distinguished between Heyer's world and the historical world from time to time!"And good point, Abigail. The book's title says it all.
Mod
noun
noun: levee; plural noun: levees
ARCHAIC•NORTH AMERICAN
a formal reception of visitors..."
just rising from the bed!
Oh yes, that was part of the Court ritual that Louis XIV of France went in for in a big way, though I don't know if he invented it. Everything the King did had a public ritual with specified courtiers for each role and the Levée or Getting Out Of Bed was one of them: it was a ploy by Louis XIV for keeping his nobles under his eye and occupied with frivolities, rather than away on their estates plotting against him.
I don't doubt other rulers took up the notion as well, but obviously in Britain by the time of George III it had become a good deal less ritualised and moved to a more convenient time of day, even though it kept the same name. It stands to reason that getting the King out of bed was an all-male occasion, so keeping that aspect makes sense.
Mod
According to Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable it goes back at least as far as Shakespeare and refers to a young person's being regarded as 'green'.
Mod
Good point! That may have been the object of the requirement for midwives to be licensed, to transfer the business to male hands.
We saw the low standards possible in some untrained nurses in both Sprig Muslin and The Grand Sophy where women were called in to invalids and found to be rough and dirty and having to be ejected; though in A Civil Contract (view spoiler).
The history of medicine in the late Georgian period is covered very well in the The Poldark Saga: Books 1 - 3, especially in Demelza, The Four Swans and The Angry Tide.
QNPoohBear wrote: "Midwives were MALE not female. The days of village women delivering babies were mostly over. Accoucheur was the fancy French word for male midwife. Village women were seen s dirty, slovenly, perhap..." I don't know if the male accoucheurs were usually called midwives, or if that term was reserved for the uneducated female birth attendants. I think "man-midwife" was considered rude. I also don't know the details of Princess Charlotte's death, although I remember her male attendant committed suicide afterwards. Many women died in childbirth because no one knew how to handle complications. I just read about the horrendous death in childbed of Catherine the Great of Russia's first daughter-in-law Natalia Alexeievna. Apparently she was physically too small to deliver the child - and I suppose a caesarean section at that period would have certainly killed her anyway, from infection if not from the operation. Like Princess Charlotte, she must have had the best medical care that could be provided, since she was carrying a heir to a throne. It didn't help. If she'd been pregnant today, the problem would have been detected before birth during routine care, and a c-section would have been carried out.
Jackie wrote: "I read that having just arisen! I though: guests BEFORE coffee???"Never! Not in this house, anyway...😳
Jenny wrote: "Critterbee❇ wrote: "Half-way through the chapter on men, and I have not yet seen the phrase 'in my salad days' which, from context, is easy to understand the meaning of, but what is the origination..."Ah, that makes sense! Like a greenhorn! Thanks, Jenny.
Cheryl wrote: "QNPoohBear wrote: "Midwives were MALE not female. The days of village women delivering babies were mostly over. Accoucheur was the fancy French word for male midwife. Village women were seen s dirt..."True, my son was breech AND backwards, which they knew ahead of time, so scheduled a “version” where they literally try to manually turn the baby from the outside (talk about medieval torture). He would not turn, so they scheduled a c-section; I think all the hullabaloo just ticked him off, went into labor that night. Emergency c-section, thank God. Can’t imagine otherwise...😳
Accoucheur or male midwife was common from what I read and Princess Charlotte suffered from old-school methods. She was basically starved during pregnancy (lowering diet) and subjected to bloodletting. She was in labor for 50+ hours with a breech baby. The doctor wouldn't use intervention because he learned from his father-in-law who was older and old school non-intervention. source: Jane Austen's World blog
Her death changed obstetrics. The old school vs. new school is featured in A Civil Contract
QNPoohBear wrote: "Accoucheur or male midwife was common from what I read and Princess Charlotte suffered from old-school methods. She was basically starved during pregnancy (lowering diet) and subjected to bloodlett..."Thanks for the information. Ideas on feeding pregnant women seem to be subject to fads. I think that as recently as the 1950s, or was it a bit later? There was a big emphasis on pregnant women not gaining much weight. I suspect bloodletting killed a lot of patients. I've certainly read claims that it did for some historical figures. Poor Natalia was in labour for five days, unable to deliver the child and no one able to help.
I had my son in the mid-90s, my obstetrics practice was still concerned about pregnant women not gaining too much weight, but that may have been growing awareness of already fat Americans, and the inherent risks associated with that complicating pregnancy.
My first daughter was born four weeks early in the early 80's. I was pretty ill through out the pregnancy and had absolutely no weight gained when she was born. She was four pounds six ounces. So I think not putting on weight seems to affect the weight of the baby. Hard to know sometimes which is best.
Also I'm finding it hard to get into this read this time.
Teresa wrote: "Also I'm finding it hard to get into this read this time."Maybe put it aside for a bit, try something else - lighter, more entertaining! Sometimes, you have to be in the right mood for a book, don’t beat yourself up, I’ve read in the news, A lot of people who are normally avid readers, are finding it hard to concentrate right now.
Teresa wrote: "My first daughter was born four weeks early in the early 80's. I was pretty ill through out the pregnancy and had absolutely no weight gained when she was born. She was four pounds six ounces. So I..."I was ill with my son, struggled to put on weight, spent a month on bed rest, etc., and he was small, too, 4 pounds, 12 ounces.
Jenny wrote: "I don't think she's right about only the Archbishop of Canterbury and 'the more powerful bishops' belonging to the upper class, with all the other clergy being considered middle class, do you? So m..."All Clerics were regarded as 'gentry' but clearly, amongst clerics, there were degrees of social stratification according to birth. Only a small number of bishops were allowed to sit in the house of Lords. They included Archbishops and certain Bishops like Durham.
I'm still struggling through the first couple of chapters. There is so much information about Gentry and Royals and Aristocrats!!! My head is spinning.
I'm bogging down too. I've read 8 chapters and am on the fence about pushing through. It doesn't help that I'm also reading a public-affairs chunkster at the same time. Looking forward to some light fiction!
Abigail, I share your 'bogged down' feeling. Having read this before, I can say that I think it works best as a reference book that one dips into, rather than a straight narrative.
"Salad days" is from "Antony and Cleopatra", isn't it? So yes, Shakespeare.
Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Only a small number of bishops were allowed to sit in the house of Lords. They included Archbishops and certain Bishops like Durham."Susan, that is true now but until the revisions of the twentieth century all the Bishops of the Church of England had seats in the House of Lords: they were known as the Lord Spiritual. There were only 26 dioceses then, so fewer bishops than now.
Barb in Maryland wrote: "Abigail, I share your 'bogged down' feeling. Having read this before, I can say that I think it works best as a reference book that one dips into, rather than a straight narrative."I could see that it would.
really ready to start Lady of Quality. ETA: the threads are up on LoQ!
Igenlode wrote: ""Salad days" is from "Antony and Cleopatra", isn't it? So yes, Shakespeare."Yes it is! Wow, Cleopatra days that - although I don't know that she was ever 'green' in sense of being naive. Or maybe that is just my grand idea of her.
I have not read this for a bit, being distracted by Things, but now I think I can dive back in :)
Mod
All Clerics were regarded as 'gentry' but clearly, amongst clerics, there were degrees of social stratification according to birth
I don't think all clerics were regarded as 'gentry', or at least, not by everybody.
I quoted Jane Austen's parsons in my earlier post, but there are two in Persuasion that the sniffier Elliots regard as below the salt: Captain Wentworth's curate brother, of whom when early on people were trying to remember his name, Sir Walter says "You misled me by using the word 'gentleman' - I thought you were referring to a man of property"; and Henrietta Musgrove's suitor Mr Hayter, whose marriage to her is strongly opposed by Mary on the grounds that it would be giving her 'low connections' in spite of his being an educated man and the heir to property.
Yes, but consider the source of those quotes--the snooty Elliots are betraying their ridiculous pretensions by uttering these words! Notably, Anne Elliot does not agree. One could be "gentry" without being a gentleman in possession of property: oldest sons were property owners and their younger brothers mostly were not, but the younger brothers were still gentry. In this era clergymen had to go to university in order to be ordained, and attending university was one of the main markers of gentility.There were, of course, many levels of gentility, and wealth and property made you a higher level of gentleman than anyone who practiced a profession. Only some clergymen earned enough to be able to marry and support a family, so they might not be eligible marriage prospects but were still acceptable company in genteel circles.
About the Hayters: there's a nuance there involving the old squire-level gentry, many of whom lived entirely in the country and were rather unsophisticated, minimally educated people, genteel only by virtue of being "old" family. The senior Musgroves are also more or less in this category, respectable but not especially refined (and Jane Austen herself was more or less of the same level). The Musgrove girls, by contrast, are striving to be in a higher category, with more polish and fashionability. And the Elliots think themselves even higher by virtue of spending part of the year in London, not to mention the baronet title. Of course, any peer would look down on the Elliots as very small potatoes! As we see a bit when they encounter the Viscountess Dalrymple.
So I would consider any clergyman "gentry," though his importance in society would depend on a lot of other factors.
And just to confuse things even more, many clergymen were younger sons of gentry or noble families (as is often the case with Heyer's characters, e.g. Hugh Rattray).
I think there's a difference between the incumbent of the living, who would normally be of 'carriage folk', and his curate, who might well be the one who did the work of the parish.Edit: for what it's worth, I've just been reading Thomas Hardy ("Tragedy of Two Ambitions", circa 1890 - so several generations later), in which a working-class boy is frustrated in his desire to become a clergyman by lack of money to take his degree, and becomes a schoolmaster and eventually passes into theological college via that route, instead of university, which enables him to become a curate.
Some great information here guys. I love all you knowledgeable people. I'm struggling trying to take in what's in the book.
Anecdote, but it is does say something about how class worked/works in England and Wales. My grandfather came from a Welsh family of customs inspectors turned lawyers (his father had worked himself up from an office boy in a law firm to beng a partner). He went to Oxford and then trained for the priesthood in the 1930s and his family thought he was definitely aimed above his station. The he married my grandmother who came from what was regarded as a "county" family and his aunt cut him out of her will for marrying above himself.
I don't understand: you'd think his aunt would glad he was "bettering himself".
Very interesting, Charlotte! I've heard of resenting those in a family who climb the ladder in that way, but never cutting someone off entirely. That story does certainly evoke the tribalism that can exist within classes, the pride in one's "place."
Jackie wrote: "I don't understand: you'd think his aunt would glad he was "bettering himself"."But the higher classes aren't better, they're just richer!
I remember once going to a family meet up and was chatting with my aunt (an old school Northern socialist) and her son, he'd just started an incredibly prestigious job in finance and when she found out I was working in a community college she turned to him and said, 'See, why can't you get a real job like your cousin?'
Nick wrote: "Jackie wrote: "I don't understand: you'd think his aunt would glad he was "bettering himself"."But the higher classes aren't better, they're just richer!"
They are not necessarily richer. Think of the GH novels (especial A Civil Contract) where the aristocratic (upper class) family is on its financial uppers and the solution is marriage into the rich up-and-coming middle classes.
Jackie wrote: "I don't understand: you'd think his aunt would glad he was "bettering himself"."I know, you would have thought so wouldn't you. But it is a story both my grandparents used to tell. I think my grandmother told it partly because she didn't see it that way at all. Her father was the son of her grandfather's second wife, who was the sister of his first wife (who sadly died). Because they were sisters, that marriage was illegal in England when they were married (in France). My grandmother grew up with the social stigma of this, even a generation later.
(I sometimes think my family history would have made a good basis for a GH novel!)
You're not alone there Charlotte!! Often thought the same about my own family.
I have just started: this book doesn't seem too demanding for the reader, a compendium of bits of information that so far don't sound really new to readers of Heyer or people who know a bit of history.The chapter about the peerage and the style of titles was interesting.
Maybe I was expecting some citations from first-hand material and sources, like diaries and letters.
But I'm just at the beginning.
Moloch wrote: "I have just started: this book doesn't seem too demanding for the reader, a compendium of bits of information that so far don't sound really new to readers of Heyer or people who know a bit of hist..."I think several of us are surprised at the lack of sources but then I remind myself it's not an academic text. It's entertaining but definitely a book to dip into rather than absorb in full!
Mod
Yes, I found an awful lot of it was things that anybody who'd read much Heyer would have picked up by themselves. I suppose we'd all sussed that a lady didn't visit a gentleman at his house or drive down St James' St, and that it was essential to keep in with the patronesses of Almack's; and it doesn't take much to guess what a 'bit of muslin' or a 'bird of paradise' is or what the matter is with somebody 'foxed' or 'shot in the neck'. I think we all understand what a 'Cheltenham tragedy' is, too, even though (as I gather) GH made that one up herself!
I'm frankly unimpressed with this book so far, very broad statements that really don't just apply to the Regency era only ("upper-class women were expected to marry and produce an heir", as if this wasn't the case before or after Regency), and sometimes it weirdly seems to quote episodes from Heyer's novels (that is, works of fiction, however meticulously researched) as "proof". I would have started with the fiction (pick up a scene from a book and explore the various aspects involved) to arrive to some real source (correspondence, manuals of etiquette, magazine articles, works from that era, paintings etc) that confirmed it and that could have been the basis for the story, not the other way round.It reads like a big Wikipedia article, so entertaining and easy, but it really doesn't go much in depth.
If you read back through the threads, you'll find this has been discussed a lot already, starting with QNPoohBear's shrewd remark at post 54.
I did, however, learn something new with the passage about Gretna Green! In the context of Heyer's books, it was easy to grasp the meaning (a couple marrying in secret and without the parents' blessing), but I didn't know if this was an actual place or just a metaphor :-D
This book is written for the newcomer to the Regency genre. If one is reading Heyer for the first time and doesn't know much about the time period, this book offers some good, simple explanations. It's not a book on the history of the Regency period. This book is perfect for when you're reading one of the novels and you want to know why a character does something or what they're doing or who that person or thing is. It's handy for when you're trying to visualize a curricle or tilbury. Lesley-Anne McLeod does the same thing on her website and many authors are using Pinterest to show off some of their inspiration.I have What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew: From Fox Hunting to Whist—the Facts of Daily Life in 19th-Century England which is kind of a similar idea and Jane Austen and Her Times, 1775 - 1817 which goes into more detail about the Georgian period. I find blogs to be very helpful if one is looking for more in-depth knowledge. Follow the footnotes!
Don't think I'll be finishing this one. In a bit of a reading slump at the moment and finding it hard to take in all the info. I have read it before when it first came out and enjoyed it.
Georgette Heyer Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew: From Fox Hunting to Whist—the Facts of Daily Life in 19th-Century England (other topics)Jane Austen And Her Times, 1775-1817 (other topics)
A Civil Contract (other topics)
Ross Poldark / Demelza / Jeremy Poldark (other topics)
Demelza (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Lesley-Anne McLeod (other topics)Jennifer Kloester (other topics)
